>> in my view, the arab states, the arab regimes can be compared sherlock holmes dogs that did not bark. in fact, the pillar of american policy in the arab world since 1933, the oil to saudi arabia

has played highly equivocal role as has most of the arab countries where palestine is concerned. of the kingdom in which most other arab countries have paid lip service publicly to the palestine cause, in private the diplomatic record shows the diplomacy has taken quite a different path. for example, 1945 after meeting with the monarch aboard an american warship president roosevelt wrote a letter in which he promised that the united states we do nothing that would harm ever interest in palestine and would consult with the arabs before it did anything. united states has betrayed these promises systematically in the decades ever since and this has brought no significant reaction from saudi arabia or other arab countries. truman and his successors could ignore president roosevelt's pledge in 1945 without fear of

losing considerable strategic economic advantages that are provided by the american saudi relationship. their dissatisfaction over the truman administrations hostile policy over palestine was so muted that secretary of state george marshall wrote to thank the saudi king or his conciliatory manner regarding palestine. it is clear that the tides in washington are far more important than their acclaimed attacks to the palestine cause. and i think has to be understood that given this reality, given this unwillingness of most arab governments to bush on this issue, the united states alliance with israel and their countries like saudi arabia are not contradictory. they can be seen as complementary. this is thanks to the extraordinary complacent folks, rumors of most arab countries, serving saudi arabia towards the united states' unflagging

support for is a. the united states has always been able to align itself from the with basic israeli -- where palestine is concerned that jeopardizing its far ranging vital interest in the gulf and other arab countries. what sustains this unequal equation? we all know that for decades this country interests have determined washington's support, in particular the ruling families in the gulf. these monarchies were in pressing need of american support given the inability of the countries to defend themselves against external enemies and the fact with exception of kuwait all of these monarchies lacked democratic or constitutional legitimacy. in consequence, even after economic upheaval that was caused by the saudi engineer oil embargo of 1973, not change this basic equation to henry kissinger says in his memoirs of that episode, the rhetoric of saudi diplomats on behalf of the

air because was impeccable and occasionally in transit. but behind the scenes saudi policy was almost always helpful to americans diplomacy. this is a basic pattern. i think it explains why did this not only the lobby to drive u.s. middle east policy. rather, since there's no contradiction between the americans strategic interest and faultfault in alignment with the arab oil-producing autocracies and massive u.s. support for israel, the short-term cause of support for israel is relatively small. and as any you have spent anytime in washington know, who in this city things in the long-term? the next election is a long-term. now we all know that public opinion throughout the arab world now and in the past is overwhelming aboard u.s. bias in favor of issue. whatever the government portends himself about how the united states is evenhanded, people in the arab world know it is not.

as we also know most of states have traditionally not been democracies, and many other growers are heavily dependent on american favor. as result washington could safely ignore the people. so when a general petraeus or secretary gates would say, this is an issue that harms us, it was possible to respond but yes, we have is pliable, weak, dependent governments without domestic legitimacy. we can push them around and do as we please. it follows, however, that is, this is an enormously big ef, if fundamental and lasting democratization takes place in the arab world as it hasn't be sure, as in south asia, southeast asia, as it has in latin america, as it has in east asia, if it begins to happen in the air war, and i'm sick fundamental and lasting democratization, a day of reckoning could come for u.s. policy on palestine. we don't know if this'll happen. we can see the precarious

situation in egypt and tunisia and libya and yemen, see the god-awful situation in syria. we have seen, and the situation in bahrain. it's clear there have been almost no impacts on most of the oil boppers of the oil gulf. however, if change begins to happen in this direction and if the policies of the arab states come to reflect the strongly pro-palestinian cast other people's views, i would argue the traditional idea on palestine would be in grave jeopardy. i'm arguing in this book that it's a distorted set of american priorities, largely directed at giving to the demand of israel and its local american visitors rather than to do anything to resolve the conflict of palestine has helped to produce a broad range of intractable outcomes in palestine. it's not just innocent bystanders. we are involved in this. one of these outcomes has been

increased since 1990, of the israelis and the population in the west bank and arab east jerusalem from somewhere around 200,000 to somewhere 600,000. prime minister netanyahu speaking to a pack in 2011 said 650,000, but that's probably exaggerated. it's in high 500,000. said was not constitute one in 10 of jewish israeli and, therefore, one in 10 of jewish israeli voters. these were intended by israeli planners to make impossible the option of a two-state solution. i'm and reason people talk about settlement blocs. those things were put there by people whose intentions was to achieve prime minister begin's vision that everyone sovereignty between deliverance he. they didn't just sprout like mushrooms until tops. they were planned by strategic planners, people who knew what they were doing. they were intended to make a two-state solution impossible.

the settlements and the rigid matrix of control that the necessity over the foru for the people of the occupied territories now in my view constitute insuperable obstacles to the prospect of such a two-state solution. this outcome is not just been made possible by american inaction. this country has been actively involved in crafting this outcome. as policymakers and politicians have willfully ignored the role in producing this outcome of $3 billion in annual military aid to israel, $115 billion over the last official, most of it since 1970, hundreds of millions of tax-free dollars that flow annually to the settlement enterprise through 513 cities, money went to pay in taxes but the donors don't have to pay, and assiduous american diplomat protections for these egregious violations of international law.

these cold hard reality is of how u.s. policy grievously harmed the palestinians are screen from you as public. we are bombarded especially on television. instead with this honest and today's red described as progress in a so-called peace process, which ostensibly consists of negotiations between near equals under the impartial gaze of an honest american broker, all of this supposedly intended to greet an independent palestinian state. i'm arguing that this is not what is actually happen. this is not what has happened for 35 years. what has happened is the continuation of intensification and the reinforcement of the dispersal, the occupation and colonization of the palestinian people and their homeland. the united states in fact has

never really operated as an honest broker between the palestinians and israel. i've never talked to an american diplomat who thought that it did. one of them, aaron david miller, was one of the people we dealt with in his been involved in this for decades, in his book described united states as acting as israel's lawyer. he was, in fact, quoting henry kissinger, who should know. the documentary record eyesight in this book shows american diplomats time and again took positions as result of careful prior coordination with the israelis that the how you're going to get to the solution in that situation is hard for me to understand. as i said sometimes these positions were more pro-israeli quote unquote the nose of israeli diplomats themselves. from camp david on where the united states post as an unbiased media but it -- on palestine, and to the systematic detriment of those of the palestinians.

in my view systematic detriment to the possibility of a just and lasting peace between these two peoples. all of this was cloaked in high founding but thoroughly dishonest language. in conclusion, let me say that a number of broad patterns contributed to this american position. palestinian weakness i haven't talked about. i wrote a whole book about that, "the iron cage" if you're interested in my critique of how badly the palestinians performed, you can read about seven years ago. everything you still do. at the other reasons are these. there was no real pressure on the united states in particular from the oil-rich arab gulf states or from the airport as a whole. the arab world has not played a part initial. in fact, it is but a negative role. there was an exaggerated attention by record policymakers to domestically driven a political concerns as these were ably articulate by the israeli body. there's another element a talk by in a book which is the degree to which the narrative has been

adopted. i can talk about that if he won. finally, in spite of occasional sympathetic and i think undoubtedly sincere noises from american leaders such as president carter or second as they big or for that matter president obama, at the end of the day american policy has advanced little or no real concern for the national or the human rights of the palestinians. great solicitude for israelis but very little concern for the palestinians. this is meant that while israeli government usually got what they wanted, we will have noticed that a peaceful and just resolution of the conflict between these peoples was not the result. indeed, i would argue we are much further away from such a result then when we naïvely walked into the state department here in the fall of 1991 to negotiate. in consequence i argue in this book that long-standing american policy on palestine has not served the long-term u.s. national interest. insofar as that interest would be served by a just and lasting

resolution of this conflict, our policy has been served our national interest. know has her policy serve the interest of international peace and stability. i'm reminded that my father worked on the political cicada council affairs division of the united nations, and he told me before he passed, more than half of the work of the security council relates to the movies and most of that relates to how stein israel arab. international peace and said that is affected by many, many things in every is really conflict, heaven knows, but it's in north part of international conflict. our policy is not served for the problem. finally, it hasn't served a true interest on palestine or the israeli peoples. those are the realities. it has taken a great deal of what george orwell called upt language to conceal these realities. thank you very much upon. >> thank you, rashid.

for a challenging and -- >> depressing? >> analysis. we've got plenty of time for questions so invite your questions. could you identify yourself, please an anywhere you are? >> there's a microphone coming. >> local businessmen in washington. the chair you hold, i think i read it's the biggest front, should be here in washington on capitol hill. what can be done by people? to change capital policy? >> show take a couple of questions and i'll answer them -- >> thank you. you articulate very clearly the

situation for the palestinians, the leadership. the united states -- what should the palestinians do in terms of step one, step two, step three, to liberate themselves from the shackles of occupation that has gone on? >> good question. let's take one more. >> the gentleman with his hand up with a cap on. >> mic is coming, sir. they go. >> what do you see the role i had, the scenario you describe is leading to a great israel. and unless the 21st accepts -- [inaudible] it may turn out to be greater palestine.

that is one scenario. what's in it you see? thank you. >> great. let me start with this last question. what do i see. what i see starts from what i think we have today. nobody would describe it this way but i think what we have today is a one state solution. there's one state between the river and to see. it's not the state that anybody wants maybe but it's what we've got. there's one sovereignty which has absolute complete control over every aspect of security and that's the key aspect of actually of sovereignty. how you get from this state to another state is i think the thing people should be trying to look into. people who talk about two-state solution have to talk about enormous obstacles to changing the israeli. not just changing realities, changing the dynamic. there's a dynamic that is nothing to do with the fact that those people in the united states favor tuesday. most people initial favor tuesday. they don't control the ministry of housing. they don't control the ministry

of defense initiative. they don't control the allocation of money to the summit. the bulldozers, the cement mixers, the funnel of money going to the settlement, hundreds of millions of dollars of it from this country has to be stopped and the process reversed if anybody is going to talk seriously about a two-state solution. talking about a one state solution means changing this thoroughly unjust one state set up that we have today where you have one set of citizens with full rights, israelis, jews. and a set of citizens of the state of israel, the 20% of israelis were not jews who is a very restricted rights. for example, most of the land in israel is state owned. arabs can't buy, rent it. coming, what kind of citizen art if you cannot have access to most of the land in your country? it's reserved for the jewish people here this is an example of the restricted rights of 20% of the citizens of a state official. one tiny example. below them descending circles of

hell, yeah the rest of the palestinians. some rights, the rights, no right, completely deprived of everything. that's where you're. i would argue just in answer to your question where are we going with this, this is an unsustainable one state solution. it's unsustainable not because you can't make a -- you can call it what it wanted. that's the reality, those decorations of rights inside the territory. it is this state and this status quo is dependent on our acquiescence and acquiescence of the earth to the rest of the rejected. most european people rejected. when and if it becomes impossible to sustain this reality, when and if it becomes clear i think then there might be a problem for this status quo. how that goes i don't know, i'm history. i can tell you how we got where we are. i can't tell you where we're going. i don't know.

what you the palestinians do? the first thing to post intended as the weaker party is to recognize that they are the weaker party and they can ill afford division. this is a destructive, a responsible, unacceptable situation for the palestinians. and any leadership that is responsible for which i think both ohavingboth of them are haa terrible disservice to their people. and deserve to be harshly judged for the. the continuation of palestinian division is a crime against the palestinians by the palestinians and no one else can be blamed. the second thing has to be done, the palestinians have to decide on a strategy, a clear strategy. i'm not going to prescribe a strategy. i'm an american citizen. who am i? one guy a beer on a lecture board. but you cannot achieve a change of status quo. you can achieve liberation and occupation whatever your objective is. if you don't have a clear strategy. i would suggest that while

certainly international law says that people under occupation which the palestinians in occupied territories are have a right to resist, they should be very careful in taking about what ways the resist. because they are not resisting a colonial occupation a lot the french occupation in algeria where they could end up winning over the metropole. you're dealing with a society which sees itself as a victim, profoundly, deeply, genuinely. whatever the release. i argue against that whole perception in the book in the introduction but that's not the point to the point is not what i think that israel is not a victim. the point is what israel's thing. a lot of forms of violence, in fact reinforce exactly the wrong tendencies of the israeli society. i think the tactics have to be carefully chosen. in order to be effective. moral and legal and not kill civilians and so on and so

forth, that should go without saying. i think that's a hard argument to have with people are suffering as much as the palestinians are. but they have a choice. they continued to be ineffective and emotional or they can be restrained, discipline and 50. one of the few marginally positive efforts in the whole of modern palestinian history. i think people should be looking back at that and think about the second thought, and the catastrophe. in response to the yes, this charisma capital. i think before you capital to have to do some grassroots. i have no objection to spend time in washington. i commit all the time. not make every city but i can all the time. not to capital, but i recognize the importance of talking here which is why i'm doing this, for god's sake. but it's not just an audience of one of something people at seiu not to be rich.

it's the grass was, the politicians who are being pushing the different direction. that is being done in a bunch of places where the discourse has already changed in many respects was beginning to change. but has not yet percolated up to the political level where we live in unreality zone, unfortunately. before you can get to the i think of to get to the grassroots to. >> the lady in the second row. >> wait for the mic upon. >> [inaudible] now that i'm teaching in d.c. in the dinner for two years, i'm worried that at least on d.c. campus as they are not changing so much. there's a lot more interest in the arab world, but there's less willingness at least from my vantage point are what i hear

and see the refl oign policy. what do we do about that? >> okay. >> i am away from a country 65 years. i have just a list of questions. the first one is -- >> make it one. >> just a small one. the united states gave $76 billion, what's up with that? naked 36 billion last year. still attacking our people in the gaza. before president obama went to the middle east, he sent a message to netanyahu, ask them, tell me the dates which you are going to withdrew from the west bank, but we know that. when he went there he said i want to make two states, one

jew, one palestinian. but he came back again -- >> do you have a question? >> yes. than the united states -- withdrew, but they ignored that also. how can we punish this state to take our thing is thank you. >> third question, lady in the back. >> wait for the mic upon, please. >> thank you. i'm and i running an american journalist. you spoke about different players on this issue. what about the role of iran? do you see the role of iran as positive or negative?

and do you think that netanyahu insistence, israeli, their constant talk about attacking iran or the nuclear issue, is that a way to evade the new issue, which is the israeli-palestinian issue? >> let me answer them in reverse order, starting with your question or iran is a major actor in the middle east. it's a large country. something sooner or later will have to come to terms with. doesn't mean where do you with everything i read is iran is like turkey or israel or egypt, and it is some legitimate interest. sooner or later wil we will havo come into, recognize that while not mrs. of the grain with what they do. i think that there's been an enormous inflation of the so-called iranian threat.

i think so o conscious, willful and deceitful on the part of both some people in this country and some people in israel. and some of it is a result of real legitimate concerns, because of iran's capabilities of power projection, which are not inconsiderable. i think on the nuclear issue a lot of it is smoke. and i frankly think it is well worth going back and reading everything netanyahu said about our intention has and it would be, acute. go back 15 years ago or 18 years or 20 years ago before he was first by ministership and recover stuff he said about a redneck if you believed him then, but he was wrong. he's been wrong for decades in fact on this issue. i think that provides us with a solitary lesson about that one should take this kind of alarmism, frankly. i am deeply comforted by the fact that our security establishment, our intelligence

community, our military, our diplomats, as well as the bulk of the israeli security community, are completely interested in what these alarmist views. they don't think that iran constitutes a threat to american and israeli politicians say. and they understand the complete and utter suicidal folly of going to war with iran. fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, we have been engaged into major middle eastern what can one which is not meant the transfer of the worst in afghanistan. and the american public and its enormous wisdom as early as 2004 just when the time of the elections terms against one of us, the iraq war. i'm not saying right wrong. i'm saying americans don't want these wars. they don't want i'm sure a war with iran. and i think that, therefore, the likelihood of it is 30 small but i think that's a good thing. on the other hand, you have a problem, potential for proliferation, how that we

cannot i do know. i think it has to be seen as a regional problem because to the extent to which iran was closer to getting a nuclear military capability, to that extent will the middle east become an uncontrolled region of nuclear proliferation and that would not be a good thing. it's already happened in the indian pakistani conflict. we do not one in the middle east. i have two more questions to answer. as far as the question from a gentleman, my grandfather retired the actually. and my dad lived much of his early life there. the question of how you punish israel is not the question in this country. the question in many parts of the world you can ask of you can as an discourage. people think israel is the victim. what you have to do is change perspectives, make people understand what the real situation is. see the way in which international law and u.n. resolutions are almost a month almost single, once i believe

opposed to actions including resolutions our government has voted for. and see a change the blue ground in this country so some of these things in implemented and that is a hard thing to do. i've been, since i was a college student in new haven back in the '60s, i can attest to difficult it is to change opinions in this country. and the question about academia changing and clicking on foreign policy, they are two possible answers to your question. the first is that for a lot of students, i think that they're very mature in the reflections on u.s. foreign policy. the ones i encountered in my courses and the ones, maybe it is self-selecting sample, going to come to classes with me, the ones i encountered when i give lectures all over the country are very unaware of some of the flaws of our foreign policy, or at least they're open to thinking about our foreign

policy. i find that is a lot less true in -- i think this is the capital of that unreality, frankly. the people who may be attracted to universities in the d.c. area are people who want to work within the beltway and who have to adapt themselves to some extent the views which are not entirely in my view in accordance with reality about a variety of things. at the middle east is at the top of that unreality list so that maybe the reason. i do know. i find american academia has changed on some of these issues for the better. >> my name is bruce and i was the diplomatic correspondent for "newsweek" throughout the whole beginning of this and for "time" magazine after this. >> i remember your byline.

>> i was president of the creation. i went, that was a impressive presentation. you happen to agree with me all the time. [laughter] but aside from that i have 42 questions which have reduced to one tactical question. what did you think of obama's pressuring abbas to drop the precondition on settlements when he was there? the palestinians have nothing else to negotiate. so he takes that out of his hands. >> gadget. -- gotcha. >> i'm from potomac, maryland. palestine's membership in united nations as a state and arab has a role in it so far.

>> voice of america. following obama listening to her and the subsequent diplomacy by secretary of state, do you envision the u.s. to launch a peace initiative? and if so, would this be constrained to the commitment? >> let me start again with the last one first. i have a set of questions that were just e-mailed to me by one of your colleagues together and you i don't have to answer her i, i don't know. i don't know what's going to happen. i have no pipeline to this administration. do not now, never have. i have no idea what they are thinking. my reading of the same kind of open sources that you have access to is that the president is unlikely to be very adventurous on this issue but that the second estate seems to

want to try to do something. secretary kerry seems have an interest in this. i think the situation is highly unpropitious myself, the palestinian division, this israeli government. and, frankly, our domestic political situation, given how preoccupied people are with other issues. but they always are. it takes a president who decides this is what import and i'm not sure this president at this stage thinks there's anything that can be done. what little i know about him is he's a practical man and he is a reading of political realities which is very pragmatic. no radical, not now, never once. i don't agree with his reading but i think that maybe his reading, that there is not much that can be done. what i maybe wrong. i have no way of knowing. will the united states continue to be bound by this commitment? this is entirely up to any individual american president. it's been turned into -- no

daylight, no surprises. i make him what started as a letter from an american president has now become a principle of american political life. it was repeatedly reaffirmed during the campaign by the republicans. this is a president who was throwing israel under the bus and was like a lot, should have no dilate, our position, their position, identical. tell them ahead of time. any president can do anything he or she wants to i don't know, i don't see this president necessarily abandoning that whoever. palestinian membership in united nations. the palestinian national movement in one of its lowest moments in the entire modern history of the palestinian people, and the fact that you have divided leadership in fact you have any idea on both sides and ineffectively ship means that you are not seeing the kind of effective use of this tool that you could see.

but in order to use something like u.n. membership of going to the international criminal court, or any other diplomatic or other tool at your disposal, you have to have a strategy. i have seen the slightest inkling of a stretch from palestinian politician four years. what are they doing? whether complex are they going to get the? i just don't see the. i see nothing in anything they see -- say, anything they do that if it were up to me, i would be trying to increase resistance on the ground to this grinding annexation and occupation process. i would be trying to increase pressure external in by, i don't know where you go are what where you go out what to where you go are what you do but there are many things you can do, and i would say, this is a process that was supposed, going to the letter of assurances which i have right here, u.s. letter of assurances, invitation to the peace conference which have right ere, these

tattered copies ideas back in 1991. this process was supposed to end in 1997. they interacted was supposed to end in 1997. final status was supposed to be concluded in 1997. this thing is 16 years moldering beyond its sell by date. if you're a possibly with any self-respect, you say this interim period has failed. we are still under occupation. we have to start again. we will not negotiate on this basis. we insist on going back to international law, you resolution, whatever you want to go back to. and we are in the meantime going to hand over the keys of this jalopy which is controlled and encased by the israelis, with two string wheels and the israeli this one actually drives the car, the real driver, and start from square one. that's what i would do. obama, well, i sort of integer question, bruce. once again the united states is pressing the weaker party to conform to the visitor, the stronger party.

now, has already israeli settlement expansion since resident carter improved the situation or not? not. is a good thing? no. are we doing it? yes. they are. is forcing the palestinians do not use those they have as the weaker party to try and write about is with israel as the president about also try to press, not using the criminal court to is that going to improve the situation? if israel is even started within with the palestinians. with the israelis be warm and fuzzy? i doubt it. >> [inaudible] >> pardon me? what you can costly due to say this use of u.s. money either tax or dollars, i.e. 501(c)(3) money for u.s. aid money most of the is no to it so it's hard shot that is just a settlement but that we will not allow.

>> [inaudible] >> if you're willing to pay the domestic political price of going up against that but saw, where are we? capitol hill, that way. i think we're time for at least a fewmore. >> where is the lady? i'm sorry, i don't see -- >> me. >> sorry. >> i agree with you that the reality on the ground is a one state solution and one state and that's what it is. and i think maybe talking all the time about peace settlements and to groups and which side do you side with has made it more difficult. because i think, i was very

active on the movement to cut off aid to latin american dictatorship. especially chile i was involved in. we to call congress everything about came up on a loan to chile and say, you know, we're not allowed to lobby but we are calling for education purposes. we want to chile what human life violations have occurred and you know that under the harkin amendment u.s. is obligated to refuse loans to countries that exhibit a pattern of gross violations of human rights come and we're just calling to inform you. we call all the congress. eventually affected. we are able to put pressure on those dictatorships. why can't we do that on israel to sidestep the are you siding with the jews, are you siding with the palestinians? this is a state that is involved in massive gross violations of human rights, and it's illegal for us to continue under u.s. law, not only as a but even loans.

and maybe that's a more effective way of approaching it? >> i, professor. spent i can't see. where are you? sorry. >> i'm a research consultant for the middle eastern institute in singaporsingapor e. i wanted to ask him in your research if you find any voices of dissent or internal debate in the higher levels of the u.s. government against the policy, especially considering it, as you say, a disservice to our long-term interest? >> good question. where's the last one? >> jerome siegel, president of jewish peace lobby. given the sorry state we're in today, beyond what you've already said about the issue of settlements, if somehow you were

in charge of american foreign policy speeches that will be today. >> decided that this was a top priority, what policies in fact would you enact? >> on the palestine issue? >> on the palestine issue. >> that's a great question. i mean, the first thing i would end up doing is something that i criticize in american politicians were doing which is to look over my shoulder and look at the domestic political reality. anything that has t to do with money had to go to congress. the president and his advisers, or her advisers when there's a female president ultimately, and all the experts can suggest this or that policy but anything regarding as you know spending money and so on and so forth has to go through congress. laws are passed by congress. we have some of the atrocious laws on the books which forbid this and join in prevent and harass this, that, the other, ways of doing -- getting with this issue. i guess the first thing i would

do would be to treat the presidency and our government as a bully pulpit. the way to present it a little bit of his talk with you this but the first two-thirds of speech and he told them what they wanted to hear in their wildest dreams. the pages of exodus do not contain such a rapturous, sign his visions as whatever was written for him and for two-thirds of that speech your but the third part, or the third, the last third was speaking over the heads of israeli policy decisions -- politicians to israelis. president bush on the back and look at president bush senior and the way he tried to do a little bit of this. unfortunate all too little. and it is what has to be done. you have to argue with u.s. national interest is pick up the are you a definitive than what i'm afraid most american presence argument to get public opinion and media and especially

congress which is very hard to move, as the biggest argument against a. so that the first thing. the second thing you should do is say what is acceptable. what is in the presence power in terms of executive authority you suggested are within the president, a couple people suggested her, or within the president's power. if i'm not mistaken we're all about to do with these folks the address a lot of power over what is tax deductible and what is not. have the following money into illegal settlements in occupied territories which are violations of u.s. policy constitute charitable purpose? may i ask. and i would lik love to see a bh of justice department lawyers coming down like a ton of bricks on the people who are funding to the tens of hundreds of millions of dollars things that i'd illegal in u.s., american presence musical illegal, or obstacles to peace in one of the most obnoxious things i can think of.

which are violations of international law in the of everybody but eugene and the people concocted a crazy theory that they are not. there are many, i'm sure other many other things the president could each of those which involve huge domestic political battle but i would love to see, that kind of force an israeli government, that's guaranteed with these kind of governments that we have these days in israel that would lead to defeat. by thing she could in this country, we are not going to enter in your domestic affairs can keep your nose out of our affairs. we will stop money going to tax-free. that's just one example but i don't know what i would do to the other thing i would try and do would be something that fitfully visit michigan study which is tied to get out ahead of changes of -- if the united states is going to end in see a strategic interest as being related to a just, lasting, sustainable, for solution of this conflict it has to make it clear to the country that it is

time to thead of this. so that's something else. we are so far away from where any, i mean, not going to happen anybody in my view who will become involved in foreign policy. but if that would be the case that would be the beginning of what you might do. i've never spoken to an american diplomat privately with maybe three exceptions. and i've spoken to a hell of a lot of them over the years. who didn't disagree with some aspects of her or his government's policy? i think most of them recognize that the domestic political reality is the language industry -- those are mistaken perceptions, i.e. palestine is not that important. as indignant as being any time in your world knows how important it is. intelligent people say the thing thing. the notice is the same thing to me on the. we've learned now from generals and admirals but it's gotten to

the top of medicaid. everyone a certain. they know that all muslims are former military. all my students to go into the military know this. i mean, i actually think there's a great deal of sense within our government, the problem is that's not what ends up determining policy. last question, congress. i mean, a grassroots campaign like the ones around south africa and central america and latin america dictatorships, if it's sustained, this thing takes ages to the first time i came to live in d.c. was in the early '80s when we left beirut in 1983. the campaign around apartheid was at its height and some of the central american stuff was ramping up under president reagan. and i was impressed with the two things. i was impressed how widespread the grassroots efforts were, and i was impressed with the degree to which people had a long-term

vision of us. they listed this is not something that would work in this session of congress or before this election. they understood the long-term things. it would take three, four, five congresses before you're going to get a change. and i think that has to be the case you. but let me say something. there is nobody for apartheid in south africa in the united states. there were a few strategists in the reagan administration who have been anti-communist worldview, within which, apartheid south africa was a bunch of good guys. but there was no grassroots support in this country or in most european countries. similarly, the dictators were not popular guys. not that popular. there were powerful interest comparable, but yes, that's just not the case with israel. i understand. i understand, and that enables the mobilization of a certain amount of the being of both of these, but no real lobby for.

and i'm not just talking about lobby but i'm not on capitol hill lobby. there are people who work on the cultural aspect of this, and will show you how the american understanding of this is rooted in long-standing views, biblically generated, driven by cinema, driven by television, driven by a certain kind of racism towards arabs, driven by a whole number of things that are not really political. books, atrocious books like exodus probably have a bigger role than all the political polemics put together in shaping the way people of a certain generation think about this conflict, i'm sorry but that's the truth. and the terrible movie with paul newman. put on anything and it's going, nihcm it's going to convince people. nobody pays attention to that but that's the bedrock of the. where is this analogous bedrock for initiate are the guatemalan or other torture squads. it just doesn't exist.

so i think it's a long, long slog to change these things. i think you have more people on capitol hill today whom you could talk to yo and you could 0 years ago, frankly. >> [inaudible] >> he said this is essentially tourism that we're moving towards energy self-sufficiency. the cold war is over. we have no strategic interest. could you expand on your outline of the strategic need -- [inaudible] >> i've been arguing with tom friedman since he was, he for his "new york times" bureau chief, and the disagree with hm on this but he's right about the tour, the stripper i don't think

this trip achieved much or franklin was intended to achieve much. i disagree with him about the strategic interest. the united states didn't even on a middle eastern oil when the state department said saudi oil is the greatest strategic pride in history. it was because it is so important or become and we are the world economy. and 1945, 60 plus percent of the the world production was in this country. we will be an oil exporte exporg 20th it doesn't matter to the world oil industry is dominated by american countries. ibecomes less and the chinese nw today. but oil is continue to be important to the strategic focus of the middle east was there before alexander the great, before the pharaohs. from the first state, this is from the time the first states existed, this was the most important region in the world. to a many others that are very important that this is the most important region of the world

because where does, the red sea, laxity, europe, asia, africa. i didn't say it to an audience like this. that's going to be case tomorrow and the day after. arab-israeli stuff, cost and are not the middle east. they are not energy but are related. so as secretary gates, as general petraeus, as admiral mullen, as have said, this affects the way the american be seen. so with all due respect i disagree with tom friedman on this as i have with him for decades. >> [inaudible] >> make it to more. >> my question is, first of all, just let me say i fully, my name

is ron wolf. i've been in middle east educational development and teaching for most of my career. i agree wholeheartedly with your view that we are at a one state solution at the present time. my question is, well, to go back to november when there was the threat by the israelis on gaza, hillary clinton left southeast asia, came to a very quick agreement about something. >> i remember. >> my question is, did that agreement involved egypt take responsibility for the gaza strip and hamas? >> good question.

>> jim? the mic is coming. >> good to see you again, rashid. as you know, i'm a real believer in what you write, and particularly what you said today. so forgive me what i'm about to say but i'm a very frustrated middle east peace activist, so those of you who know me, i've been involved with this for over 23 years trying to organize the churches, educate the mainline churches in this particular area and a spoken in other parts of the country as well. so with that in mind, as i said please forgive me because this is a very harsh question. u.s. was everyone in this room, i think you're all living in a fantasy. and i am, too, and here's the problem. in your presentation you talked about the error street and a disconnected the arc with their leaders, council the right. but you didn't talk about public opinion in this country. you've got to.

we are democracy and we are not disconnected from public opini opinion. and and you look as did, as i have done at public opinion on israel-palestine, for the last 20 years, guess what? over 50% of americans support israel. less than 10% with a few exceptions, the 82 war was one of them, less than 10% support palestinians but the rest of them are neutral. despite all the great work that all of us have done in this room beginning with my good friend, j street and so on, we have not made a dent in that. and at the same time the other side the claims a two state opinion, in my opinion are not that they're very clever, and they are using that, right, not on the quote unquote jewish lobby, the aipac people but even more so the christian zionists. my fellow christians, right, are enormously powerful. when have a conference should

have six, 7000 people. when aipac as a conference they have 12,000. my point is, how do we crack that public opinion? because as long as it will be that overwhelming you have to be an idiot as president or congressman to go against that lobby. go against public opinion. >> gotcha. let me take the second question first again. i me, your numbers are right. i don't disagree with them. i would suggest that if you wanted to do a more in depth survey, you do one by age. and i think you would get different numbers. if you take people under 30, under 25, you are going to get a different set of numbers, including young evangelicals, including young orthodox, including everybody. i bet you would get different numbers than their elders. we have people with the fossilized view of this that was in my generation, frozen in 1967. they thought israel was in danger of extinction.

we now know from the historical record it was not. everybody who knew anything knew it was not that people said this was a country and perpetual extension danger. it is not, but everybody believes it. the kids don't, or fewer of them do. and it's not the only one of these many, many, many core bedrock myths that younger people are at least beginning to be somewhat more skeptic. they don't believe the news media. they never watch network television. datawatch cable-tv. they watched jon stewart and stephen colbert and stuff that none of us have even heard of. that's what they see. that's what they know. i mention what's in the new york times and the class larger than this in the morning, and at most 5% of the class not there had been no what i'm talking about. i mentioned the joke that was cracked before on "the daily show," before efficient half of the class is laughing because they sought not on tv. they see on the laptop, ipads, whatever. so i would say that's the first

thing. do an age thing. when they get older and more conservative as we all do, they will change, i don't know. the second thing i would say to you is that it's well worth looking at some the changes taking place within the jewish community because i think you are right, the evangelical support for israel is the new frontier for lobbying. i actually think that there's a very brittle situation in terms of some key issues where they te breakdown inside the jewish community, especially as regard age. there's an almost hysterical fear among the aged people who cling to control of the institutions that purport to represent this community. because they do the service. they talk to the youth. they have leadership centers and so on and so forth. they have a sense of some of these changes, they are fighting back with all the money and all the assets and all the resources and all the intelligence and all the or position at there. it's not oring.

so i'm not saying that the millennium is again, public opinion will change. it's not going to change but actually it is changing a little bit. in certain regards and in certain things. immediate as change a little bit, just a tad, a little bit and that has any numbers impact. it is to impossible, my son is a playwright, it's still impossible if you're an actor to get any role except as a terrorist. why? because all middle easterners, all swarthy people are terrorists. we know that. that is the perception in our society. you've got to do with that before you can change. we're not talking to him what i was saying, its culture. it's not just lobbying and politics. >> [inaudible] >> young people know that. but they're not the ones who control casting and television or hollywood. last question is ron's question. about gaza and secretary clinton. it's a very interesting question. i don't think that egypt

accepted or would accept responsibility for gaza. i go to egypt all the time, and i talk to everybody. i don't talk -- i talk to people who are connected in various ways. and the impression i get is that there is an egyptian, there's a phobia on the part of people connected to egyptian official dumb, against any sense of having the tar baby of gaza shoved into their arms. they are willing to kitchen things and they're not willing to take full responsibility. hartley for enlightened reasons, i.e. this is a problem you've created and you, israelis, americans, have to so. a party for self interested recent because they understand what a colossal word and it would be worthy to be responsible. so i don't think, i don't know what to do with. i'm not privy to what happened. i don't know what actually happened between the secretary and president morsi and his people and the hamas people but what i've read, what i've heard indicates that no, egypt is --

did not adequately. if you look at what's going on in egyptian politics today, the troubles of egypt are being blamed in some of the press on the brotherhoods over solicitude for hamas. there's no fuel oil in egypt because as all being sent to gaza, according to some ridiculous rumors and opposition papers. so the way that explain is in quite a different direction. >> let's thank rashid khalidi for a wonderful lecture. [applause] >> thank you. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs, weekday feature live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy vince. and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. ..

>> to members of congress. then a discussion about the supreme court and the death penalty and the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment. after that, a perspective on u.s./iran relations from an iranian-american author and journalist. >> the house returns for a brief pro forma session today. legislative business resumes tuesday at 2 p.m. eastern. on the agenda this week, legislation to repeal the 2010 health care law and a bill requiring the securities and exchange commission conduct a